4.2 Article

The NICE MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid) health apps search filters: development of validated filters to retrieve evidence about health apps

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S026646232000080X

关键词

Bibliographic; computer-assisted; databases; information science; information storage and retrieval; mobile applications; therapy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives Health apps are software programs that are designed to prevent, diagnose, monitor, or manage conditions. Inconsistent terminology for apps is used in research literature and bibliographic database subject headings. It can therefore be challenging to retrieve evidence about them in literature searches. Information specialists at the United Kingdom's National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) have developed novel validated search filters to retrieve evidence about apps from MEDLINE and Embase (Ovid). Methods A selection of medical informatics journals was hand searched to identify a gold standard (GS) set of references about apps. The GS set was divided into a development and validation set. The filters' search terms were derived from and tested against the development set. An external development set containing app references from published NICE products was also used to inform the development of the filters. The filters were then validated using the validation set. Target recall was >90 percent. The filters' overall recall, specificity, and precision were calculated using all the references identified from the hand search. Results Both filters achieved 98.6 percent recall against their validation sets. Overall, the MEDLINE filter had 98.8 percent recall, 71.3 percent specificity, and 22.6 percent precision. The Embase filter had 98.6 percent recall, 74.9 percent specificity, and 24.5 percent precision. Conclusions The NICE health apps search filters retrieve evidence about apps from MEDLINE and Embase with high recall. They can be applied to literature searches to retrieve evidence about the interventions by information professionals, researchers, and clinicians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据